Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Andrew c

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Contents

[edit] Andrew c

Closed as successful by Cecropia 06:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC) at (61/1/0); Scheduled end time 03:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c (talk · contribs) - User:Andrew c has been us with since January 2006, and has over 11,000 edits with a very good spread of subjects and areas around the project. He has shown himself an excellent, careful and collaborative editor on some high-profile and controversial topics. He is patient, unflappable and takes great pains to explain his position, and WP policy, of which he has a very good understanding. He does a lot of work cleaning-up categories, and is very active on WP:CfD, in both nominating and commenting. I am sure he will continue to be of great benefit to the project as an administrator. Johnbod 02:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination: I have also noticed each of the things Johnbod mentions about Andrew c. Additionally, he has sought my feedback both on contributions he has made in my subject area, and regarding edits he has made to my own contributions. I have found his improvements to my own contributions accurate, and showing deep understanding of Wiki processes. His own contributions are marked by both clarity of expression and a reliable verification trail. I have learned a lot by examining the references he provides! Andrew c strikes me as an editor motivated by the "big picture" of Wiki, not limited by his own particular areas of interest. I am comfortable that I can responsibly report that the evidence I've seen suggests Andrew to be an editor of considerable character, diligence and ability. Alastair Haines 02:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Third nomination: I have worked with Andrew c for over a year, and, during that time, what I've found most exceptional about his involvement in Wikipedia is that he has been able to cross-edit articles on a number of contentious topics while still remaining deeply involved in helping to resolve disputes that may arise. He is thorough, patient, and considerate in discussion, and always takes the time to become familiar with the issue at hand. He has a firm and subtle understanding of Wikipedia's policies and I have seen him apply this knowledge practically many times before. Andrew c is probably one of the most diligent, helpful Wikipedians I have ever worked with, and the only negative thing I have to say about his candidacy is that it didn't come sooner. Severa (!!!) 04:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I graciously accept. Thank you both all for the kind words.-Andrew c 03:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: For a while now, I have been contributing to CfD. Not only in nominating and discussing, but also by cleaning up articles from categories and restructuring trees. I'm also experienced in closing, which regularly becomes backlogged (although, because of a recent page protection on /working, non-admin closure has become limited). I'm also interested in other XfDs. I'm familiar with 3RR reports, and recently commented at AN/I.[1] The fast paced, prolific world of AN/I is intimidating at first, but it's something that has started to interest me. Additionally, I regularly participate in FPC (though I haven't closed any discussions), and am interested in monitoring new image/page creation.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Recently, I'm proud of my work on the New Testament manuscripts, including Biblical manuscript and Chester Beatty Papyri (in addition to my work with the Category:Biblical manuscripts and subcats, and the lists such as List of New Testament papyri). I have not always been a consistently heavy content contributor, but these articles are cases where I put in hard, sourced research. Working on these articles reminds me that Wikipedia is more than having a watchlist and reverting vandalism.
I'm also enjoy my categorization work, such as dividing up Category:Typefaces based on the stylistic classifications used in typographic textbooks. The reason for this is just because I'm interested in typefaces, and am formally trained in their study.
While I have moved away from editing more controversial articles, I'm glad to have participated in the 1st paragraph discussion at Abortion, the RCC vs CC discussion at Roman Catholic Church and the AD vs. CE discussion at Jesus. I've learned how to handle myself in heated discussion, and remain calm and centered.
Finally, I'm proud of my work on Jesus, from going to the library to check sources for the lead, to cleaning up the "Life and teachings, as told in the Gospels" and making sure it was in sync with the spinout New Testament view on Jesus' life, to trying to address problems during the last FAC. All of this work has taught me a lot about policies and guidelines, in addition on how to work with other editors, even if they hold strong POVs.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Yes, I have found myself in conflicts with other users. In these instances, I try to stay calm and be civil, even in the face of incivility. Responding inappropriately to something that wasn't appropriate in the first place just escalates a situation. Depending on the type of dispute, citing sources or referring to wikipedia guidelines can help. If problems still persist, there are always options to consider to get more input, such as 3O and RfC. If things get too heated, I've found peace in letting things go, and taking a wikibreak. After the conflict is resolved, I have grown to respect most of the editors with whom I have been in conflict, and I hope the feeling is mutual (even counting those editors who have been permibanned or voluntarily left due to their actions). For the future, I don't anticipate my behavior to drastically change.

Optional questions from —M (talk • contribs) 19:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

4. Do you believe the Wikipedia community has a set of shared ethical values?
A:Wow, pretty deep questions. Let's see. As a whole, because wikipedians are from all corners of the earth, and some people who participate in the project may do so for malicious reasons, I'd say that generally, there is no set of shared ethical values among all wikipedians. That said, I believe a lot of the policies and guidelines and general motivations of the community are driven or otherwise related to shared ethical values. What I mean by this is that some of our policies, such as WP:BLP and WP:VIO, are driven by an ethical belief that breaking the law is a bad thing. Other policies such as citing sources, NPOV, and verifiability are guided by the general consideration that we, as an online encyclopedia, should not only present neutral, accurate information, but that it should be transparent where this information originates. But the relationship between ethics and our policies and guidelines is complex, and I wouldn't say that our founding principals or our guidelines are necessarily representative of the community at large.
5. Do you believe that ethical values should be taken into consideration when crafting policy?
A: To an extent, in that the belief in providing an accurate, verifiable, lawful content is an "ethical value".
6. Do you believe it is appropriate for an administrator to impose their own ethical values when making administrative actions (e.g. deletion, blocking, page protection, etc.)?
A:In all honestly, I'm not entirely sure what this question is asking, but I'll try my best to answer it. I believe it is a terrible practice to impose against the community consensus personal value judgments during administrative actions. For instance, if an admin goes against consensus in a XfD closure based entirely on personal preference (like "I value Batman comics, so we shouldn't delete Category:Batman villians even though the community clearly wants it gone",) or if an admin uses admin privileges to push a POV during a content dispute (like "I'm against the death penalty so I'm going to protect the page during an edit dispute and add non-neutral content that speaks negatively against the death penalty"). Often, consensus is more important than the personal values of one editor. This is not to say that admins should be required to go against their own personal ethics (though it may mean an admin may need to recuse herself as an admin at times).
How about more subtle things: Protection of subjects' privacy is important, and so is telling the truth, but which is the more important? . DGG 02:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe privacy is more important, per WP:BLP. Wikipedia has the power to "affect real people's lives". I believe the policy is pretty clear cut. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, nor newspaper. Wikipedia should do no harm. Wikipedia should remove unsourced and poorly sourced content, inflammatory and non-neutral content about living people. Wikipedia should not include private contact info, and personal info such as birthdays should be removed on request. So even though a tabloid my report on an individual's personal information, or even report hurtful content, and these things may be true, they would not be appropriate for wikipedia.-Andrew c 02:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
and if an unquestionably RS says it? DGG 17:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I think individual articles need to be examined on a case by case basis. I also think public life vs. private live comes into play. For example, if someone does something in their public life (like write a notable book that they later are embarrassed of, or get sued for something notable, yet the individual would rather forget), and we have "unquestionable" reliable sources to verify these aspects of the individual's public life, then I believe that, if written neutrally, they can be included in the article. On the other hand, if the aspects are not notable, or not sourced, or part of a living person's private life, this type of content tends to be unencyclopedic and open to removal. More generally, I hopefully will not be put in a position where I alone get to decide the fate of an controversial or disputed article. The way I understand notability, and even BLP issues is that these issues are put in front of the community and discussed. Therefore, I do not believe a single admin is in a position to bypass or override the community (except BLP issues that are clearly harmful). Hope this answers your question.-Andrew c


Optional questions from WooyiTalk to me?

7. In what circumstances will you use WP:IAR to delete pages (in whatever namespace) that do not belong to, or in the gray area of, criteria of speedy deletion? WooyiTalk to me? 16:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
A:I don't anticipate ignoring the rules in CSD. If something doesn't meet the speedy guidelines (which are pretty straightforward), I will remove the tag, notify the tagger, and suggest to them to use prod or AfD. In these instances, an improperly tagged article (i.e. one that doesn't meet speedy criteria) is better to be examined by the hands of the community instead of left up to the whim of an admin.-Andrew c 17:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Andrew c

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Andrew c before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • I take it that your update of the end time of this RfA was a mistake? (aeropagitica) 04:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    • My apologies. I was following the instructions to 3. Change the time on your RfA page to indicate the current time. and I did this by typing ~~~~~. Slipped my mind that it was the end time. I've restored the correct end date.-Andrew c 04:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • My interaction with Andrew has been limited, so I admit I can only contribute a limited amount to the consensus process. What I have seen, especially on Talk:Jesus, is that he seems willing to engage other editors on the talk page instead of edit war on the article. Further, he is generally civil and is, as he says in response to the questions, willing and able to do fact verification and other necessary editorial processes.
  • Further, in this edit, he came to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content to ask if there were any freely-licensed desktop publishing softwares with which to contribute an image to a new typography article he was editing. That said, I judge from my interaction with Andrew that he is generally civil, that he contributes content and that he is willing to ask questions; all great qualities in a potential administrator! I don't have any reason to object to a bureaucrat sysopping him, and I look forward to seeing him around with the sysop bit. --Iamunknown 04:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support Seems like a civil editor, and a nice amount of edits. ~ Wikihermit 03:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support candidate is a dedicated contributor, especially with articles concerning religion. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 03:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support I see no problems with this user.--†Sir James Paul† 03:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support as nominator - wow you have to be quick round here. I've said my piece above. Johnbod 03:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. Plenty of experience, this user will use the tools well. Happy mopping. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support I see no problems with this user. Captain panda 04:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Strongest possible support: This is an editor who's prolific, dedicated to improving the encylopedia, has made excellent article contributions, is interested in helping with administrative tasks, and most importantly has proven time and again that he can handle controversial and heated issues with a cool head and aplomb. I can't think of better qualifications for the mop, and support his candidacy without reservations. MastCell Talk 04:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support for reasons expressed in my last minute co-nomination. -Severa (!!!) 04:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Reviewed your contributions, talk pages, katewannabe, etc. and can see you are a very diverse editor, not only in Wikipedia and mainspace but images as well. I am confident and comfortable you can handle the mop. --Ozgod 04:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support More than ready for the mop and seems very trustworthy. In addition, we definitely need more admins who have experience with articles on religion to help assist in resolving the seemingly never ending disputes on Wikipedia in this area. -- Jreferee (Talk) 05:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Definitely ready for taking on all the admin duties. I must say, I am impressed with the candidates lately; a change since the spree of unexperienced users who apply for adminship, fail and leave Wikipedia. Oh well, good luck Andrew! You will be a great administrator. +spebi ~ 07:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 07:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support. Good user, no problems. - Zeibura (Talk) 08:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  14. Yep. Daniel 09:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support per nom David Underdown 09:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support I've seen Andrew around, and he does good work. If he is willing to work in WP:CfD, he can be of great help. —Anas talk? 11:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support He has been a civil editor, and I think it's time we give him the mop! Politics rule 11:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support. Good and experienced user. utcursch | talk 11:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  19. Strong support Great editor - very fair and conscientious. Will be a fab admin. Sophia 12:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support Nat Tang talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me! 13:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support. Adminship is no big deal, and I can't see any reasons to oppose. Waltontalk 14:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support I don't think that the admin tools will be abused by this editor. (aeropagitica) 15:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support seems like a great user to me. Acalamari 16:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support, good luck! The Rambling Man 17:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support I've crossed paths with him on a few different occasions, and found him to do great work. I think he'll make good use of the tools. Sxeptomaniac 17:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support No oppose yet (the candidate must be good), so I´ll support. ♠TomasBat 18:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support, unlikely to abuse the tools and will put them in good use. Besides, adminship isn't a big deal. Sr13 20:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  28. Strong Support per everyone above. Kevinwong913 Speak out loud! 20:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  29. Strong support When Andrew c sinks his teeth into something good things happen. - RoyBoy 800 20:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support I see no problem with it. OysterGuitarst 21:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support and good answer to 6 - a very tricky question. ck lostsword•T•C 21:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support More editors need to be like this. --Piemanmoo 22:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support Good editor, no problems. We need a lot more dedicated admins, as I am sure from looking at contributions this editor will be.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support Appears good editor and keeps cool. Would make a good admin, am sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Escape Artist Swyer (talk • contribs)
  35. Support- per Anthony.bradbury. Eddie 23:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 00:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support - No concerns. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 02:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support - Looks like a civil and well understanding user to me. --Hirohisat 03:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  39. Yes support Good applicant. Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support - we need more admins who are willing to edit actual articles. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  41. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 11:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support - Its about time we gave him the vacuum cleaner..--Cometstyles 11:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support as per conomination above. Nice to see unanimous support (so far) for this productive and friendly Wikipedian. :D Alastair Haines 12:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  45. About time! KillerChihuahua?!? 13:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support. All is well, here. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 14:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support. His edits to Biblical manuscripts have been very good, as was his recently featured DYK on Papyrus 45.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SU Linguist (talk • contribs)
  48. Support I have no doubt that you'll be a great admin. —METS501 (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support. A courteous and conscientious editor in my experience. ElinorD (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support good user and good answer to my question. WooyiTalk to me? 22:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  51. —AldeBaer (c) 23:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support. from neutral. Gimmetrow 01:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Strong support - answer to Q7 is exactly right, and is a model that all admins should follow. Waltontalk 19:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Duplicate vote, see #21. Riana (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry I accidentally voted twice... I feel like an idiot. Though my comments about Q7 still stand. Waltontalk 13:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support - fine editor. Polite and calm with all. No problems here - Alison ☺ 00:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support, good impression of this conscientious editor. I'm especially glad to see his respectful yet firm interaction with LoveMonkey. All right, so it's not working... but as all admins know, sometimes it doesn't, all we can do is our best. Pages on religious subjects are some of the most sensitive and quarrel-prone we have, and I believe the fairness and patience demonstrated by Andrew c is exactly what's needed there. Bishonen | talk 10:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC).
  55. Support Q7 is good and overall I suspect he will be problem-free.JodyB talk 13:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support Nothing to suggest will not make a good admin. Davewild 15:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support Hardworking, Polite and level headed in the face of trouble, OK Modernist 19:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support per noms. Peacent 03:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  59. Supprot : No big deal, can be trusted with the tools. :) -- Stwalkerster talk 17:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support. I see no reason not to issue the buttons here. -- DS1953 talk 01:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support per Wikihermit. Should make a good admin. --健次(derumi)talk 02:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Strong Oppose I oppose Andrew c as an administrator. I perceived his conduct on the Christian religion articles that we have worked on as biased toward a pro Gnostic and minority view. Which is OK if not at the expense of then providing counter arguments provided by mainstream scholars. Which if I provided he then edits out if posted (even when sourced) or blantaly distorted. He has done this repeatedly. Making him a wiki admin is a bad president as he has a distorted view which appears to be extremely misinformed. As scholars who would view wiki, they would understand this one sided perspective and consider the overview of the articles that he has distorted, then as being uncreditable and wikipedia by proxy as uncreditable. Andrew c not only engaged in wiki stocking of my articles he also removed sourced information from a good body of these articles, info I got directly from scholars that I was in contact with. He has repeatedly engaged in bias behavior which is inappropriate for an administrator- who needs to be unbiased.
    His work with Alister on the biblical text to me is insulting and hypocritical since he deleted my attempts at first creating many of these articles. He has also engaged in revert warring and completely distorted what a specific biblical scholar sent me in correspondence WHILE the scholar was actually working with me and reviewing the article online on wikipedia-talk:Gospel of John. This scholar has since now stop corresponding with me I can only assume DUE to Andrew c's behavior. Andrew c, after being caught in purposeful distortion of the scholar then changed the subject by insisting that his behavior was OK because I did not include a page number when I used the scholars book to source an overview in the article. An administrator had to step in to keep him from repeatedly requesting that the source be sourced in the article.
    This individual has set repeatedly bad examples including in articles rejected opinions of rejects scholars while removing opinions and even mention of mainstream scholars. In his mistakes he shows that he would rather change the subject then address the issue or issues at hand. Andrew c as an administrator is a bad president for wikipedia. His conduct has already cause wiki to loss creditability as can be seen by his horrific behavior on the Gospel of John article let alone his revert warring and horrible behavior on other articles.
    LoveMonkey 15:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you, LM, for your comment. While I do not agree with your assessment of me and my past actions, I do appreciate you voicing your concerns. For everyone else, please see my attempt to clear the air with LM back in April. I explain my position on some of the issues LM brings up above. As for the Gospel of John incident, LM's incivility lead me to file a Wikiquette alert. I thought that my work with Alister would clearly demonstrate to LM that I edit in good faith, instead my work insulted LM. All I can say is that I am sorry that LM and I got off to a bad start, and nothing I have been able to do has lead to any form of forgiveness or redemption. LM, I'm sorry. I want us to be able to get along. I have tried to make amends in the past, and I cannot comprehend why you have so much spite in your heart. Please try to examine my wikipedia contributions on a whole, look past our personal differences, and please try to forgive me and move on from the past. As for everyone else reading this, I ask that you examine the conflicts between LM and I, and consider raising specific concerns for me to address if it will help you in your consideration of my administratorship. [also, could a neutral party please move this up to the oppose section?]-Andrew c 16:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    You know you like to do this whole apology thing and then turn right around and start right back up with your despicable conduct. Professor Hill's book is right now highly regarded in the field Johnannine studies. If Andrew c had done even one of the unethical things he did in the academic arena he would have been removed from the field. I actually was in the middle of trying to convince Professor Hill to actually contribute to wikipedia and when he saw you go in for no obvious reason and reword what he went over with me via email what should be done to the article he broke off correspondence with me.
    http://www.amazon.com/Johannine-Corpus-Early-Church/dp/0199264589/ref=sid_dp_dp/104-9065577-7076764
    Shame on him and Cambridge ah Andrew. Man this is just really bad.
    Here (and this is just the tip of the iceberg) is were Andrew c completely blanket edited out Professor Hill's sourced info [2].
    Here's where he could not leave my adding the information again into the article well enough alone. [3] [4] [5] He attributes to Professor Hill a bigtime historical inaccuracy note his removal of a large amount of timely and update data I was corresponding with Professor Hill over he replaced it with a shoddy synopsis. This is just one article Andrew c has engaged in this type of conduct. Also note that right after this Andrew c then got into a revert war with administrator Tom over wanting a page number for an overview I wrote to a 500 page book. He did this on other articles. As well as nominate one of my articles for deletion
    [6]
    And just blanket deleting others.[7]
    As for his attempts to reconcile well first the conflict postingEnglishEfternamn was a sock puppet so excuse my lack of wanting to engage a sockpuppet in dispute negotiations. Second the sockpuppet was wrong. Surprise. Third Andrew c is gaming the system while deleting my contributions repeatedly. Now wikipedia is making him an administrator. Bad bad bad.
    LoveMonkey 02:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral for now. I think Andew will be a decent admin, but I saw an edit in recent contribs marked "rvv" reverting a first occurance of non-obvious vandalism.[8] It should have been reverted, but the anon may not have known what was wrong, and I don't think wrongheaded but potentially good-faith edits should be called vandalism ("rvv"). The first notice to the anon was on the third occurance, referencing a consensus without a link, and the anon's response at User_talk:210.213.94.154 suggests the anon may not have understand the problem with the edit. Jumping to uw-v3 on the next occurance based on a pattern,[9] when the editor might still not understand the problem or be able to find anything on the talk page, seems a bit inappropriate to me. My advice is: be more proactive explaining things, as other editors may not be aware of the reasons against the edit. Gimmetrow 22:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing up your concern. I have moved my longer comment to talk, and I'll try to be brief here. I believe this is a special case, and not representative of my warning of anons. I use the templates for obvious vandalism, and try to write personalize messages for WP:EL and other not obvious vandalism issues. However, I've been watching Catholic Church (disambiguation) for a while now, and I have noticed a pattern. An anon editor (most of the time with a 210.213.. IP address) comes along and bolds only one of the roughly dozen churches listed in the lead. This has happened 28 times in the past year by my count, and been reverted by at least 5 different editors. In November, I tried to dialog on the talk page. The same edits persisted, so when they returned in June, I decided to start warning the user. Because this involved different IP addresses, I was not comfortable giving out a last warning, but I did view the situation in light of the page history and assumed the edits were connected. In retrospect, I could have tried to dialog more. Thanks again for bringing up your concerns, and I hope this helps explain things.-Andrew c 00:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I only looked back to May for prior indications. Still, it looks like this anon is more misguided than intending to vandalize. Striking. Gimmetrow 01:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.